Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution requirements)

[Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]>]

okay.. se we got the “das PE” and from local hood the “dat PE” ;-)

- JOuni


> On 08 Mar 2017, at 17:57, Jiangyuanlong <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> And  DA-T-PE, DetNet Aware T-PE;)
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Jouni Korhonen
> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 4:42 AM
> To: Lou Berger; Loa Andersson; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution requirements)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> DA-S-PE (like.. das PE ;)
> 
> - Jouni
> 
> 3/8/2017, 12:20 PM, Lou Berger kirjoitti:
>> Which option do you prefer?
>> 
>> 
>> On 3/8/2017 3:18 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>>> WFM.
>>> 
>>> 3/8/2017, 5:56 AM, Lou Berger kirjoitti:
>>>> On 3/8/2017 7:35 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
>>>>> Folks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> One terminology question, I don't really have any opinion on what 
>>>>> we call things, but I'm definitely for that we only have one name 
>>>>> for one thing.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Today we use T-PE and S-PE, but also T-DetNet-PE and S-DetNet-PE, 
>>>>> can we converge. My slight preference would be  T-DetNet-PE and 
>>>>> S-DetNet-PE, to differentiate it from "normal" S-PE and T-PE.
>>>> The architecture defines this as:
>>>> 
>>>>   DetNet intermediate node
>>>>           A DetNet relay node or transit node.
>>>> 
>>>> And some good examples are in the DP Alternatives draft
>>>> 
>>>>  TSN              Edge          Transit        Relay        DetNet
>>>>  End System       Node            Node         Node         End System
>>>> 
>>>>  +---------+    +.........+                                 +---------+
>>>>  |  Appl.  |<---:Svc Proxy:-- End to End Service ---------->|  Appl.  |
>>>>  +---------+    +---------+                   +---------+   +---------+
>>>>  |   TSN   |    |TSN| |Svc|<-- DetNet flow ---: Service :-->| Service |
>>>>  +---------+    +---+ +---+    +---------+    +---------+   +---------+
>>>>  |Transport|    |Trp| |Trp|    |Transport|    |Trp| |Trp|   |Transport|
>>>>  +-------.-+    +-.-+ +-.-+    +--.----.-+    +-.-+ +-.-+   +---.-----+
>>>>          :  Link  :    /  ,-----.  \   :  Link  :    /  ,-----.  \
>>>>          +........+    +-[  Sub  ]-+   +........+    +-[  Sub  ]-+
>>>>                          [Network]                     [Network]
>>>>                           `-----'                       `-----'
>>>> 
>>>>                 Figure 1: A Simple DetNet Enabled Network
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>          DetNet                                           DetNet
>>>>          Service         Transit          Transit        Service
>>>>   DetNet   |          |<-Tunnel->|     |<-Tunnel->|         |    DetNet
>>>>   End      |          V     1    V     V     2    V         |    End
>>>>   System   |    +-----+          +-----+          +-----+   |    System
>>>>   +---+    |    |S-PE1|==========|S-PE2|==========|S-PE3|   |    +---+
>>>>   |  X....DFa.....X_.......DF1.......X_....DF3........X.....DFa...X  |
>>>>   |CE1|=========|  \  |          |  /  |          |  /  |========|CE2|
>>>>   |   |    |    |   \......DF2.....X_......DF4....../   |   |    |   |
>>>>   +---+         |     |==========|     |==========|     |        +---+
>>>>       ^         +-----+          +-----+          +-----+        ^
>>>>       |        Relay Node       Relay Node       Relay Node      |
>>>>       |                                                          |
>>>>       |<------------- End to End DetNet Service ---------------->|
>>>> 
>>>>                          Figure 5: Native DetNet
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> So I think what you are asking for is a shorthand for a 'S-PE that 
>>>> is a DetNet (aware) Relay Node' , right?
>>>> How about one or more of the following:
>>>>    - DetNet S-PE
>>>>    - DA-S-PE (DA=DetNet Aware)
>>>>    - DC-S-PE (DA=DetNet Capable)
>>>>    - DR-S-PE (DR=DetNet Relay)
>>>>    - DRN-S-PE (DRN=DetNet Relay Node)
>>>> 
>>>> Lou
>>>> 
>>>>> /Loa
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2017-03-08 13:46, Balázs Varga A wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Jouni,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> OK, I think my text may not be clear enough. Local-ID is not meant as a router id.
>>>>>> " Each node (T-PE, S-PE and P) use a local-ID of the detnet-(compound)-flow in order to accomplish its role during transport."
>>>>>> Local-ID refers to an ID used by a node to identify internally a DetNet-flow. Maybe "local-Flow-ID" would express it better.
>>>>>> Such a "local-Flow-ID" value may or may not differ from the 
>>>>>> "Flow-ID" value encoded in the DetNet packet. If it is different we fallback to what You have called "virtual-label".
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I hope that clarifies your concerns.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>> Bala'zs
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 8:21 PM
>>>>>> To: Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>
>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Section 4.1 added (DP solution 
>>>>>> requirements)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks Balazs,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am not quite sure about the local-id text:
>>>>>> "Local-ID MUST be unambiguously bounded to the Flow-ID encoded in the DetNet packet."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> By default each router has their unique router id with the autonomous system that you need e.g., with routing protocols.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If the flow-id is unique within the detnet domain I am not sure what mapping the above is talking about. Do you mean that a set of flow-ids would belong to a router (identified by a local-id)?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 3/7/2017, 10:23 AM, Balázs Varga A kirjoitti:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> Section 4.1 added on the GitHub.
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>> Bala'zs
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 7:23 PM
>>>>>>> To: Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>om>; Loa Andersson 
>>>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] about identity labels.. was Re: new 
>>>>>>> versions of my slides
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Balazs,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Your proposed Section 4.x would definitely be good to have. I am not too much for Section 4.y since I do not see it would not be needed in the final document, except for the definitions that should go to Section 2.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regarding the two choices we have now I just add prologue text and describe (graphically both). The logic of the "identity label/tag" is mostly the same independent of the location in the stack. The processing is of course different.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 3/6/2017, 9:49 AM, Balázs Varga A kirjoitti:
>>>>>>>> Hi Jouni,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> just for clarification: Do we intend to list all options in the draft ???
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> They all have pros and cons ...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Anyway I think we need a structure like below in the draft for 
>>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> in section 4. Is it inline with your intention? Shall I prepare 
>>>>>>>> some text
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> around this items for the call on Wednesday?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> *4.x DP solution requirements*
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> List of prerequisites for a proper solution on an x-PE:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 1, to distinguish PWs going through (operation label-swap) and 
>>>>>>>> PWs need DetNet serving (e.g., FRER)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2, to handle PW-label collisions (without major implementation
>>>>>>>> difficulties)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 3, to work with both centralized control and distributed control
>>>>>>>> (signaling)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> *4.y DP solution toolset*
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Description of the toolset discussed so far:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> A, L-label: additional label between t-label and PW-label
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> B, different PW-labels per segment: similar to the MS-PW label 
>>>>>>>> allocation mechanism
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> C, e2e PW label: no change of the PW-label (same PW-label value 
>>>>>>>> between T-PE nodes)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> D, d-id label: additional label used as T-PE identification
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> E, Flow-ID outside of the label stack
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Bala'zs
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Loa Andersson
>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 3:07 AM
>>>>>>>> To: Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] about identity labels.. was Re: new 
>>>>>>>> versions of my slides
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Jouni,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 2017-03-06 07:36, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> - global as the special purpose labels, seems unlikely
>>>>>>>>>> - global as unique with in the domain, though we know there is 
>>>>>>>>>> a scaling  problem
>>>>>>>>>> - global for one sender, not that different from d-id, other 
>>>>>>>>>> that the placment in the stack ???
>>>>>>>>> In my small mind I reasoned it to be unique within one domain. 
>>>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>> the identity would now be 32 bits (there is no need to restrict 
>>>>>>>> it to
>>>>>>>> 20 bits since it is part of the _encapsulation_header_ not the 
>>>>>>>> label stack), the scaling concern is more relaxed. Assuming each 
>>>>>>>> node in the domain would like to be able to name 4k unique 
>>>>>>>> detnet flows of their own then the domain could host 1M such 
>>>>>>>> detnet nodes.. not too bad for one domain.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> My earlier calculations estimated that we would have about the 
>>>>>>>> number of PWs between any pair of T-DetNet-PEs would be about 
>>>>>>>> 400 and the number T-DetNet-PEs about 1000.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 32 bits is  4 000 millions, so there is ample number of flow 
>>>>>>>> id's even if we would have to configure a range on each T-DetNet-PE.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So you look at the flow-id and then compare the CW/Seq #, right?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Now, range configuration is a kludge, can we find a way to avoid 
>>>>>>>> it, maybe d-pw + node-id would work, all this would have to 
>>>>>>>> happen in the context of the (outgoing) d-pw anyway, right?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> /Loa
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>>>>>> /Loa
>>>>>>>>>>> Carlos
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt